Sex is like oxygen, it’s not important until you’re not getting any.
unclviny
(who’s sig seems to fit this thread nicely)
Then we agree.
There is, of course, the rule where if your SO witholds sex for 30 days or more, you are allowed to hook up with other women and it isn’t cheating (assuming you just don’t break up with her outright). The reverse is not true.
Withholding sex is THE dealbreaker (along with getting too fat or being to anoying). What’s the point of even having the relationship if there is no sex? I have other guy friends for companionship and I don’t need a shopping buddy or someone to watch Julia Roberts movies with.
yosemitebabe
"I think many celibate priests are proof of that. "
Perhaps not the best example.
Yeah, I guess we never disagreed, I guess. As I wrote earlier in this thread, “IMO, it usually is a reasonable and understandable dealbreaker.”
msmith: I did take pains to specify celibate priests. As in, no sex, not with anyone. None of the celibate priests are dead from lack of sex, unless someone can show a cite proving otherwise?
As for the rest of your post, I am not sure if you are serious, or what. I am not sure you are keeping up with the content of this thread.
spooje, I know that that is not what the OP is talking about, but my point is that the OP is creating a false dilemna. The OP is saying “Gee, is this a good enough reason to leave?”
There is an unstated assumption in that question, the assumption that you can only leave if your reason is good enough. The way I view relationships, that unstated assumption is wrong–you can leave a relationship for any reason, however trivial, if you feel like losing whatever benefits you currently gain is worth being free of whatever issues you dislike. Since I disagree with the unstated assumption, I can’t really comment on the question itself–it becomes meaningless.
Then I went off on a tangent, as I am wont to do, and pointed out that dependence in a relationship is a poison, and that many people accept a dependence vis-a-vis sex when they would never accept a state of dependence for money, security, approval, anything. In my experience, there exisit a lot of people who honestly believe that you cannot live without sex–six weeks of celibacy is like an entirely new paradigm to them. Because they view their sexual needs as being of supreme importance, they have a tendency to get into relationships they would not otherwise get into because they have to have sex, they stay in relationships that make them miserable because they have to have sex, they are utterly vunerable to being manipulated by the person who controls the sex in their lives because both they and their partner know that they will always do what they have to do to make sure that they have sex. Getting to the state in which you accept that your sexual satisfaction, like every other aspect ofyour mental state, is your job, not someone elses, frees one partner from dependence and the other from the clingy feeling of being needed (as opposed to wanted).
Agreed.
Need may put a person at a “disadvantage” in a relationship, but if the non-needing partner is working it that way, it’s a symptom of other fundamental problems in the relationship as a whole. People who respect or love their partner but have simply lost their sexual interest in them aren’t going to try to use that fact to anyone’s advantage or disadvantage, it simply is what is. They’ll find other ways of maintaining the relationship for the mutual benefits which still exist (if they do exist) or they’ll dissolve the relationship and move on.
Agreed, but I think that someone who “needs” sex is more likely to end up with a partner who using sex in a manipulitive fashoin: the reason is simple mathematics–people who feel like having a steady stream of sex-with-a-partner is their number one priority and that more than say, six weeks without a steady source of sex is a calamity have to chose their partners from the pool of people whom 1. are willing to go out with them and 2. they come into contact with in the six week window after their last relationship ends. This is a much smaller pool to chose from than the person who is comfortable and content with all aspects of being single and who can look for years if need be. When you chose from a smaller pool, you have to make more compromises, and ending up with a partner who is less than ideal seems more likely (of course, some people get lucky when they get lucky). The ability to walk away is the ability to make a free choice, and healthy relationships are ones that are freely entered into.
Well, good, because if I was married to you and that’s the kind of sex you wanted, I’d be reluctant.
I think that part of the problem is that relationships have historically been predicated on the idea that marriage is supposed to be some sort of a guarantee of regular, satisfying booty.
How many ladies here have heard the whole “Buying the Cow/Free Milk” argument from an older relative (usually female)? (I myself am wondering if/anticipating that my mother will bring it up when I eventually move in with my SO.) And while we laugh at this idea now (at least I do, when I’m not mildly repulsed by the implications here), it still exists, it’s just that we’re not as open with it.
As someone already said, the idea seems to be that the woman is the one withholding sex, and the man is the one feeling cheated, since he paid good money for this cow . . .
But even the other way around, the issue may not be so much the idea of sex being perceived as a need rather than a desire (incidentally, bravo to yosemitebabe and Manda JO for excellent points) . . . it may be more about sex as a right that necessarily comes with marriage.
I’m not being as articulate as I’d like right now, but do you know what I mean?
Overall, though, the tradition of using it as a bargaining chip of ANY kind has got to go.
Is there also a right to be left in peace and not harped on when you aren’t in the mood?
Lets say that - like Woody and Diane, you have regular sex - 3 times a week. Which is too little for Woody and too much for Diane. Is Woody justified in breaking off the relationship because his sex drive is higher? Is Diane justified in breaking off the relationship because her sex drive is lower?
I’m with Manda Jo in that relationships are voluntary things, and any reason (or none) is good enough to call it quits (particularly if there are no children involved - children becomes more problematic). But if the reason is incompatible sex drive, shouldn’t it work both ways? If the reason is manipulation via sex, there are, as has been mentioned, other issues - sex is only the symptom.
(BTW, anyone thinking sex is such a necessity that it would cause marital problems to get cut off for six weeks better not plan on having any kids - since six weeks of no nookie is pretty standard on doctor’s orders after giving birth - and chances are fair that the beached whale that is your partner at nine months hasn’t been feeling too sexy for a number of weeks before labor)
Well, that’s a mildly offensive way to put it, if you’re looking to put men down. I could just as easily say that women who divorce lazy men feel cheated, because they thought their ring bought a slave.
The fact is, people within a marriage have a reasonable expectation that they will live intimately with their spouses, including having sex and taking good care of each other. And we can be egalitarian and say that men and women are equally guilty of ignoring the sexual needs of the other, but that just wouldn’t be accurate. I think if you polled 100 couples where one partner expressed dissatisfaction with their sex life, 90 of them would be men.
The lack of sex within a relationship can be a big problem, and it’s not because of the lack of sex per se. When I was single, it was no problem going six weeks without sex. There was no expectation of it, and no need to feel rejected by not getting it. But within my marriage, if I went without sex for six weeks absent a good excuse (illness, overwork, whatever), I’d probably start to wonder why. Then it would become an issue with me. Then every rejection would start to feel personal. After a long enough time, I’d probably feel pretty awful about it. I think the same can be said for a woman who inexplicably found her husband suddenly avoiding sex with her. I think it’s very destructive to a relationship.
And there’s no need for it, if the relationship is healthy. Sex doesn’t have to be intercourse. If one partner is ill or otherwise not in the mood, they can still be intimate. Even a backrub and some kissing can let the ‘rejected’ party know that it’s nothing personal.
Sam, sorry if you took my comment the wrong way. I meant it tongue-in-cheek (but failed to use the appropriate smiley), and certainly meant no offense to men. I only take issue with the antiquated notion that either party in a marriage should view it as some sort of exchange of goods (i.e., booty for a ring, or a ring for some booty). In my opinion, that pretty much sucks.
For the record, I agree with you and everyone else who has said that it’s understandable to want intimacy (which is not limited to sex, but can certainly include it) in a relationship, and to feel slighted when it’s not happening.
I wasn’t being as articulate as I’d have liked, but all I meant to suggest was that instead of focusing on the perception of sex as
a) a NEED, or
b) a WANT,
perhaps the issue here (whether it’s wrong or right) is the perception of sex as © a RIGHT.
Because that’s what the OP seems to be asking: Does a person have the RIGHT to expect sex from an SO/spouse?
That’s all.
Well, no more so than you have a RIGHT to not be yelled at, or ignored, or to have your husband be home for supper every night. But if you were married to someone who never showed up at home and yelled at you when he did, you’d probably be out the door.
So no, sex isn’t a right. And clearly even inside a marriage it is wrong to assume it or demand it, and especially to just take it. That’s rape.
But in most relationships it is an expectation, and a reasonable one. And it is a basic human need which can cause people to have all sorts of problems if they don’t get it. So it’s a pretty important expectation. If you love someone, I think providing sex for them within a marriage is a basic requirement, and the lack of it often leads to the destruction of the marriage. That’s just human nature.
On a more practical note, I think that the lack of sex starts a vicious spiral. Because the rejected partner starts feeling unloved, which causes them to retaliate or draw away from the other person. This in turn causes other problems in the marriage, which makes sex even less enjoyable or unlikely. Again, I think this is a normal human reaction.
And I do think this affects men more than women. I heard someone say once that women don’t enjoy sex as much unless they are feeling loved, and that men don’t feel loved unless they are getting sex. I think there’s some grain of truth to that, and it helps feed the negative situation I described above.
So if you’re in a relationship where you’re the one who doesn’t want to have sex, and the reason is because you don’t like the way your partner is treating you or how your partner looks, I recommend just taking him/her to bed and going at it like crazed weasels. Try the occasional surprise attack. Break the pattern. Good sex leads to good relationships.
Dr. Phil ain’t got nothin’ on me in the advice department, man.
Boy, that last message sounds a little contradictory. On the one hand I said it’s wrong to demand it, but then I said it’s a basic expectation. It’s not really a contradiction. I fully expect my wife to want to continue to have sex with me, but I wouldn’t demand it, and if I come home and feel frisky and she doesn’t, I wouldn’t dream of demanding it or throwing a hissy fit over it or anything. But if that state of affairs continued for weeks on end, we’d have to have a chat about it, and I would expect us to work towards a solution. It would not be acceptable for her to say, “I just don’t want it.”
This is hypothetical, and not autobiographical. I am putting myself in the emotional place of the OP, as a husband, in a thus far successful, and happy marriage.
I seem to be the only one crying into my pillow about this. Is that just hopeless romanticism? Was I absolutely idiotic to believe that marriage included feeling sexual attraction, and acting on that attraction with an expectation of a response? Did no one else ever tell their spouse that they wanted to feel that feeling? Isn’t it true that “I am desired” is a big part of what sex in marriage means?
Here is someone who has a marriage of some long standing, and now things have changed. “I don’t want you, sexually, anymore.” Legalisms aside, that just crushed my emotions, and I am not sure I can get over this. I am absolutely sure I can’t get over it on my own. Need, versus want? Hell, I’m dying here! My fucking heart is already broken, and I don’t know why it is happening. I already doubt every passion I ever experienced with my spouse, even when we were young together. I need a lot more than a blowjob here. I need to have my masculinity back, please.
I am not looking for an excuse to get a divorce, I am looking for a way to keep from blowing my brains out. I just lost every intimacy I ever had in my marriage. It’s all just a sham, as it turns out, and my wife was just “doing a load” like it was laundry, or something. Shit. Death doesn’t look all that grim, in comparison. This is not a “deal breaker”; it’s the rape of every tender moment in my memory.
Tris
“It was a woman drove me to drink and I didn’t even have the decency to thank her.” ~ W.C. Fields ~
I think that is an inaccurate reading of the OP. I think we can ALL agree that no one has a right to sex from their SO. It wasn’t about a difference in drives or preferences.
That is the issue of the OP. One member withholding sex as a weapon to punish or coerce the other.
Triskadecamus, of course we all agree that if your partner were to suddenly ixnay the exsay it would be devestating–as are all sorts of things that can, and do, happen in life. The philosophical question we are wrangling with is “well, what do you do then?” In wrangling with that question, all of us here have the opportunity to explore our beliefs on the role of sex in marriage and the role of obligation in marriage.
I also think that you’ve described one situation as being the authoritative one, when really it is just one possibility. How about this?
" For twnety years, I’ve had his kind of sex: for the first decade, I tried every thing I could to get him to see that I wanted something different than his standard five-minutes-of-rutting–I tried to get him to go talk to someone with me, I rented dirty movies and pointed out the stuff that looked exciting to me, I left sex manuals out, and I read sex mannuels out loud to him. I told him to touch me THERE damnit, and tried to move his hand myself. For a decade he would appear to listen, even to agree with me, and then, as soon as I quit the constant nagging–which made me hate myself–he went back to just rolling on top of me, rutting for five minutes, and going to sleep.
"For the second ten years, I just shut up and masterbated after he went to sleep. I’d done everything I could to get him to change, and it wasn’t going to happen, and I finally realized that I hated the stress of the nagging and the hinting and constant hoping that he would get it way more than I would ever enjoy the actual sex–the costs of fighting over the issue weren’t worth the potential prize. So I let it drop and refined my oral skills so that I could get him off as fast as possible.
“Now, after ten years of that, I don’t think it’s worth dong any more. I’ve dependended on my hand for the last ten years, he can too. I’m sick of having him thrust all the way down my damned throat, I’m sick of feeling smothered under him, I’m sick o the noises he makes when he ruts away. He can stay or leave–that’s up to him–but I’m not having sex with him any more.”
That’s just one other perspective on ending sex in a marriage. I’m sure we can think of dozens more. In the end, what we are discussing is that when that happens, is the partner who still wants to have sex obligated to stay in the marriage and make do. Some posters seem to be saying “No, they are not obligated to stay in the marrige because sex is such an important thing”, but what I (and yosimitebabe) are saying is that “No they are not obliged to stay in the marrige. Yes sex is an important thing. But even if it was a trivial thing, they still would not be obliged to stay in the marriage.”
So for the arguement that is being presented, it really dosen’t matter how devested the still-wanting-sex-partner is–their emotions are, of course, important to them, but, in my arguement at least, they don’t have any bearing on whether or not it is ok to seek divorce. Again, their emotions aren’t irrelevant to life, they are jsut irrelevant to the this particular moral quandry.
If a spouse declared “I will never have sex with you, ever again” and the other partner considers sex important, I don’t think it would be fair to force one person to be in an unfufilling relationship for the rest of their life.